Wild about Harry: the 'netroots' love him, but will the Senate majority leader hurt his party?

National Review, May 28, 2007 by Byron York

IN late April, the left-wing activist website DailyKos asked its readers to evaluate the performance of Senate majority leader Harry Reid. Nearly 22,000 so-called Kossacks voted, and the verdict was overwhelming: Almost 90 percent approved of Reid's work. "Sen. Reid, I love you," wrote one admirer, asking that Reid write something for DailyKos "so we can shower you with mojo & love."

At about the same time, the Washington Post's David Broder, the longtime "dean" of the Washington press corps, issued his own evaluation of Reid's work. In an uncharacteristically biting column focused on Reid's comment that the war in Iraq "is lost," Broder called Reid a "continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance." A "long list" of senators, including some from Reid's Democratic caucus, Broder said, are ready for the majority leader's "exhibition of ineptitude to end."

It would be hard to find more telling examples of the two worlds of Harry Reid. On one hand, the far-flung "netroots," the loudest and most uncompromising force in Democratic politics today, love their "Give 'em hell Harry." On the other, Washington moderates, including some Democrats, are offended by his shoot-from-the-hip, gaffe-a-minute style. And there have been rumblings, not just from Broder, that Reid might be in trouble.

Is that true? Is Reid's "exhibition of ineptitude" about to end? Not by a long shot. In fact, interviews with Democrats across the ideological spectrum suggest that Reid is far more popular with his Democratic colleagues than some critics believe--or hope. After Broder's article appeared, all 50 of Reid's fellow Democratic senators wrote the Post to stand by their man. "In contrast to Mr. Broder's insinuations, we believe Mr. Reid is an extraordinary leader," the senators wrote, saying that Reid "has effectively guided the new Democratic majority through these first few months with skill and aplomb." Now, perhaps there were some senators who didn't quite believe that, who felt pressure to be on the team, but the majority of Democrats do indeed support Reid. The fact that any dissenters felt they had to publicly get in line suggests that, for now at least, Harry, Hero of the Netroots, is the man in charge.

The question for Republicans, stuck in the minority, is this: Is that a bad thing? Ever since last November's elections, the GOP has had a two-part strategy in the Senate. The first is to rely on Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell to hold the line against the Democratic majority. The other is to wait for Reid to overreach--or self-destruct. So far, at least, McConnell is holding up his end. As for Reid, talk to Senate insiders, and they'll point to four factors that could ultimately prove the majority leader's undoing.

HIS BLOGGER BUDDIES

"He has strengths," says one plugged-in Democratic strategist. "He has extraordinarily good relationships with his members. He can bring them together and keep them in line. But to the extent that he takes advice or is guided by the blogosphere, it's not only a huge liability, it's a significant problem for the caucus, because their views don't reflect the mainstream. The whole thing that happened with the Fox debate was f***ing lunacy."

The "whole thing" to which the strategist refers is a series of events that played out earlier this year in which Reid originally supported a Democratic presidential debate in his home state of Nevada sponsored by Fox News and then, after some not-so-subtle pressure from the lefty blogosphere, backed down completely. It began in February, when the Nevada Democratic party announced the debate would be held in Reno on August 14. "This is more great news for Nevada," Reid said in a statement. "I'm happy Fox News will be a partner for the August presidential debate."

Within a few days, bloggers were expressing outrage that Democrats would have anything to do with Fox News. "Does this mean that Air America will be hosting a Republican presidential debate?" asked Markos Moulitsas, founder of the DailyKos. "50 demerits for any Democrat who participates in a debate sponsored by the conservative machine's propaganda arm. Seriously. There's no need to further legitimize and enable the GOP's mouthpiece."

A few days later, the powerful netroots activist group MoveOn.org jumped on the issue, sending out a petition saying that Fox is a "right-wing mouthpiece like Rush Limbaugh and the Drudge Report--repeating false Republican talking points to smear Democrats." According to MoveOn, more than 265,000 people signed the petition. Moulitsas soon asked several Democratic campaigns whether they would take part in the Fox debate. The campaigns, he reported, were "conflicted" about the issue. Expanding on the veiled threat he had issued the week before, Moulitsas wrote that the Democratic candidates "could make things easier for themselves by just stating, en masse, that they won't do a Fox News debate ..."

Within hours, John Edwards's deputy campaign manager, Jonathan Prince, sent an e-mail to Moulitsas announcing that Edwards would not participate in the Fox event. "Great job by the Edwards campaign," Moulitsas wrote, "showing real leadership on this issue." A day later, Moulitsas and a few other bloggers confronted Reid on a conference call. The bloggers pressed; Reid caved. "I don't like Fox News," he told them, maintaining that he had not had anything to do with choosing the network for the debate. Reid said he was reviewing the situation; within hours, the debate was canceled.